Marcus, any reader of this "Orthodoxy in the Philippines Talk Page" can see and review what Antiochian secrets that you have divulged by simply looking at the "history" [http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Talk:Orthodoxy_in_the_Philippines&action=history] which records the past versions of this page. This is the reason why I adviced you to be extra careful with what you post here. It is too late, even if you try to delete them over and over again the uncanonical schemes of the Antiochian Orthodox Church in the Philippines registered by Fr. Deacon Chris Gain at the Philippine SEC as "Iglesia Orthodoxa ng Pilipinas" in December 2006 is recorded here.

−

−

Marcus, if there is somebody who should refrain from "personal attacks", making "lamentable comments" and spreading maliscious gossip and accusations etc., that person should be you. Let me remind you of the several "attacks", gossips and accusations you have written so far in the Discussion and Talk Page:

−

−

"The Greek Orthodox Church in the Philippines can not call itself the Orthodox Church of the Philippines because '''it is not legally entitled to do so''', check the SEC registration again. '''Nor does it have the canonical or moral authority to do so'''." - Marcus (pls see also [http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Talk:Orthodoxy_in_the_Philippines&diff=52668&oldid=52663])

−

−

−

""However, many Orthodox Christians in Australia have been hearing more stories about '''the plight of Indonesian Orthodox Christians--who suffered greatly''' and are now being cared for under ROCOR--and are sensitive to issues of race, colonialism, and '''the recent uncanonical actions taken by Constantinople in Great Britain'''. In addition, there have been '''complaints made by certain non-Russian slavs in Manila''' about the lack of sacramental services to certain hierarchs. So there is considerable pressure to establish other jurisdictions in the Philippines and it is likely in the near future, the Filipinos and other nationalities will have more options and more access to Orthodoxy than the '''type of Helenic Orthodoxy that is in Manila.''' " -Marcus (pls see also [http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Talk:Orthodoxy_in_the_Philippines&oldid=52663])

−

−

"Rev. Father John, Bless me, Father. I'm replying to some comments you have made in the wikipedia. You've stumbled upon an interjurisdictional dispute between three churches and whether or not the local Filipino Orthodox are actually Orthodox. Without getting into detail, ''the unofficial position of Moscow, ROCOR, and Antioch is that'' '''a majority of the ones converted into Orthodoxy in the Philippines were paid to. They continue to get paid to go to church.''' We also support Orthodoxy in the Philippines being lead by Filipinos. The Greek Orthodox Church is lead not by the Filipino priests but by a Greek married priest from Thessaloniki and the parish council is dominated by a Greek-American, Milton Adamson, which is why his name is mentioned everywhere. this is the same situation that occurred in Indonesia until the majority of Indonesians joined ROCOR in 2005. '''In another age, that church would be called a tool of colonialism. However, the Greeks prefer to call it Helenism.''' In Christ, '''Marcus''' (See also [http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:FrJohn&oldid=52651])

−

−

You see Marcus, everything you said against me bounced back to you. Yes, you can say anything you want against the Greek Orthodox Church and the Filipinos who are under its jurisdiction but who will believe you? Now you are trying to avoid the subject about the Antiochian Orthodox Church in the Philippines all together by deleting over and over again your previous declarations. Anyway, thanks for divulging the clandestine and uncanonical scheme of the Antiochian jurisdiction in the Philippines. These are all recorded here for everyone to see. We really learned a lot from you. I do hope the Antiochian Orthodox Church in the Philippines or the "Iglesia Orthodoxa ng Pilipinas" will not suffer the same fate as that of the short-lived (barely months old when it was disbanded) Saint Peter and Paul Antiochian Orthodox Mission in the Philippines in 2005. --[[User:Filipino|Filipino]] 11:08, June 11, 2007 (PDT)

Revision as of 05:07, June 12, 2007

Contents

"clandestine and cultic"

This language is pretty strong -- maybe it would be helpful to have more identification here -- what are these groups like, what are they called? "Clandestine and cultic" should have some documentation to fill it out, otherwise this language is just regarded as personal opinion. — FrJohn (talk)

"clandestine and cultic"

Dear Father John,
The online dictionary defined the word clandestine as "existing or operating in a way so as to ensure complete concealment and confidentiality" ([1]). The American Heritage Dictionary defined the word cult as "a religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. The followers of such a religion or sect. Listed below are registered churches in the Philippines claiming to be "Orthodox". No other information can be obtained from the internet except the name of their church. I have talked with some members and clergymen of these "orthodox" groups years back while I was searchin for the true Orthodox Church and I found out that they professed the Hindu, Buddhist and "New Age" doctrine of Karma and Reincarnation. They also believed in "mediums" (i.e., Christ, God the Father, the Holy Spirit, the Theotokos, the Child Jesus etc. possesing their spiritual leaders (priests and bishops) thereby receiving from them the power to heal, prophesy etc.).

There are other unregistered clandestine and cultic "churches" claiming to be orthodox which are not included in the above list.

Father, since you find the language "pretty strong" please provide a more appropriate alternative. Thank you very much. Filipino 21:27, June 7, 2007 (PDT)

Thanks, Filipino - it's very interesting, if not helpful, to see all of those groups. Perhaps strong language is appropriate, but maybe they are not all clandestine or cultic according to your definitions? Definitely they breed confusion, and it can be good to identify groups to avoid. — FrJohn (talk)

Dear Father John I already removed the "strong language". Thank you for your unbiased insight and kind remarks.

If they are clandestine as you say "Filipino, then why are they listed with the Philippine Exchange Commission, have been recognized as religious entities by the Philippine government, and some of these groups are members of the National Council of Churches in the Philippines. Please stop politicizing this entry. ---Marcus

The term "clandestine" has been removed. The groups are what they are - it isn't really of concern to us here. Marcus, can you provide any solid documentation related to the arrival of the Lebanese families you metioned in the 1800's? Thanks, — FrJohn (talk)

Antiochians in the Philippines

It appears that there is some polemic here, with Marcus representing the Antiochian side and Filipino representing the Greek side. Both have provided different histories of the origins of Orthodoxy in the Philippines, which each seem to bolster jurisdictional claims.

It's difficult for me to imagine that Antiochians aren't in communion with Greeks -- is this really the case? Was the deacon merely representing himself, or was he sent by his bishop?

I can definitely see the canonical problems here, though. It may be helpful to keep in mind that these canonical issues persist throughout the "diaspora" - hence the historical interest in claiming first landing in the country. There is no doubt that these conflicts will remain with us for some time. My hope is that on the wiki we can seek to describe the situation as completely and dispassionately as possible, with attention to the historical circumstance and competing canonical claims. We are definitely biased towards the what we call "Mainstream Chalcedonian Orthodoxy", i.e. those churches in communion with the ancient patriarchates (with the exception of Rome), but I would prefer to remain as neutral as possible in the midst of inter-jurisdictional disputes such as this. — FrJohn (talk) 10:45, June 8, 2007 (PDT)

Chris Gain is not a deacon within the Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand or any Orthdox Church. His views do not represent the views of any canonical bishop in Australia --Marcus

I reverted the article to the previus revision as of 17:37, June 8, 2007 by Fr. John. Marcus, please justify your act of deleting the reference to the first reception of Filipino Orthodox Christians in the Philippines and for removing the links to the canonical Orthodox Church in the Philippines. Likewise, Marcus, please cite your sources and historical documents to support your claim about the Lebanese and Syrian Christians in the Philippines. If you can provide evidence and documentation for this then reference to Lebanese and Syrian Christians as the "first" Orthodox Christians in the Philippines should be included in the article.

Would you want the family names? The Syrian and Lebanese Consulates in Manila confirmed that after the opening of foreign trade, a number of Ottoman subjects from the Greater Syria province arrived in the Philippines including the Sa-id and Saliba (which became Filipino-nized into "Soliba") families. The Sa-id family has the records to show that their ancestors worked on British ships in the Philippines.

Furthermore, I deleted the references because it is too politicized and shows blind papal-cesaerism, not to mention its highly inaccurate and anti-Arab. The Greek Orthodox Church in the Philippines can not call itself the Orthodox Church of the Philippines because it is not legally entitled to do so, check the SEC registration again. Nor does it have the canonical or moral authority to do so. According to the 1, 2, 3 Ecumenical Councils, Antioch is entitled to the jurisdictional territory of the "East" which means all of Asia and for this reason Antioch had parishes in China, Indonesia, and India as early as the 2nd century in the year of our Lord. It is also known that the Patriarchate of Moscow still considers the Philippines its missionary area because of its early presence here and also a major concern has arisen with the stories coming out of Indonesia about the Greek Orthodox Church and how 3/4 of the Indonesian Orthodox Christians are now under the omphorion of the ROCOR.

However, all God-fearing Russian and Antiochian Orthodox in Australia share a general sorrow for what has happened in SE Asia after stories from Indonesia have emerged.

Also if you would have taken the time to examine the SEC registration, you would have noticed that the registration of the Orthodox Church in the Philippines was a gift from Chris Gain to Patriarch Ignatius IV of (the City of God of) Antioch and All the East. That is why Chris Gain is mentioned in the paperwork. The Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese has nothing to do with gifts to the patriarchate and they would appreciate it if you would stop mentioning them in the article without their authorization. I would like to repeat that the Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand, and All Oceania has had nothing to do with Chris Gain nor with his Iglesia Ortodoxa ng Pilipinas. The Antiochian Archdiocese was as uninformed as was the Greek Metropolitanate of Hong Kong about this gift.

May God grant you guidance and wisdom to refrain from attacking the ancient See of Antioch and for showing more discernment in your writing about Orthodoxy in the Philippines.

--Marcus

It seems to me that we should keep the reference in to the Lebenese families. Not sure why it is so contentious. Certainly, any canonical claims cannot merely rest on the "a few families from someplace arrived here first" argument. It's an interesting historical tidbit, anyway.

About the other matters, I kindly request that you both refrain from personal attacks and from attributing bad motives to one another, at least here. These are difficult issues, and it's a difficult time in church history (can't think of one that wasn't...). Ultimately, the bishops must work these things out. Honestly, I think that all of these "it's my territory" claims are doomed to failure in the so-called diaspora. The world has changed - increased mobility of peoples and other forces of globalization means that traditionally Orthodox peoples, each with their own histories, find themselves in far corners of the earth. Naturally, they bring their heritage -- and their hierarchy -- with them when there is no established and deeply rooted Orthodox church body in the region. The various jurisdictions will simply have to learn to live with each other under these new circumstances, observing and preserving carefully the bonds of communion which tie us together. I am sympathetic with the desire for canonical order that I see reflected in Filipino's statements, as well as the desire for an authentically indigenous Orthodoxy I see in Marcus' comments. It seems to me that these issues won't be really worked out unless there is a functioning primacy according to Orthodox canonical tradition, that bears the interests of the whole deeply in its heart. We may all dream of such a day, but it doesn't appear that this will happen anytime soon.

I want to emphasize once again that the role of OrthodoxWiki is not to take a side in these debates, but to honestly reflect the situation as clearly as possibly, avoiding gossip, speculation, and slander. The articles should reflect who says what, where, when and (to the degree it can be ascertained) why. This may not solve anything -- but that's not the purpose here. I hope this approach will be of service to people trying to figure these things out on all sides.

May God bless us and have mercy on all of His struggling children! — FrJohn (talk)

Dear Father John, I totally agree with you. Truly, any canonical claims cannot merely rest on the "a few families from some place arrived here first" argument. Sadly, it is a well known fact that those who deny the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the diaspora are mostly those who belong from the uncanonical group of eastern orthodoxy. Again, thank you very much for your valuable insight. Marcus, can you tell us more about the "Orthodox Church in the Philippines" which is registered at the Philippine SEC as the "Iglesia Orthodoxa ng Pilipinas". Its website does not indicate any address in the Philippines and abroad. Is it under the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch? In the year 2007 Antiochian Archbishop's Report Fr. Deacon Chris Gain's name is listed as one of the Deacons under the Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia (pls. see Archbishop's Report.)His name is also listed at number 14 under "Clergy no longer with the Archdiocese". You wrote that "Chris Gain is not a deacon within the Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand or any Orthdox Church" but the February 06, 2007 (Antiochian Archdiocese News.)wrote: "With the written blessing of Metropolitan Archbishop Paul, Father Deacon Christopher was released from the Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand this day to assist the Patriarchate located in Damascus, Syria." But you said Chris Gain is not a deacon in "any other Orthodox Church". And why did you refer to Fr. Deacon Chris Gain simply as "Chris Gain"? I hope you can shed more light on this. Thank you. Filipino 04:09, June 9, 2007 (PDT)

Deleted Reference to Fr. Deacon Chris Gain and his church

"Also if you would have taken the time to examine the SEC registration since you specifically mention it, you would have noticed that the registration of the Orthodox Church in the Philippines was a gift from Chris Gain to Patriarch Ignatius IV of (the City of God of) Antioch and All the East. That is why Chris Gain is mentioned in the paperwork. The Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese has nothing to do with gifts to the patriarchate and they would appreciate it if you would stop mentioning them in the article without their authorization. I would like to repeat that the Antiochian Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand, and All Oceania has had nothing to do with Chris Gain nor with his Iglesia Ortodoxa ng Pilipinas. The Antiochian Archdiocese was as uninformed as was the Greek Metropolitanate of Hong Kong about this gift and the Archdiocese only found out about this recently." -Marcus -(Pls see: Talk Page Revisions)

I guess the reason for your deletion is that you just made this all up (except of course for the fact that the the Metropolitan in Hong Kong and the local Orthodox Clergy in the Philippines were not informed by Fr. Deacon Chris Gain when he "clandestinely" registered his "Iglesia Orthodoxa ng Pilipinas" or Orthodox Church of the Philippines at the Philippine SEC in Manila last December 2006. I used the strong word "clandestinely registered" because of the fact that Fr. Deacon Chris Gain did not inform anyone at the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong including the local Filipino Orthodox clergy in the Philippines as you yourself affirmed. You also alleged that the Antiochian Archdiocese in Australia was also "uninformed" and worse, the Antiochian Archbishop "only found out about this recently", hence, if this allegation of yours is true, this only serves to confirm without any reason of a doubt the clandestine manner by which Fr. Deacon Chris Gain registered and established this "Iglesia Orthodoxa ng Pilipinas". As for the questionable canonicity of this clandestinely established church, the "Iglesia Orthodoxa ng Pilipinas", this is clearly demonstrated based on your revelations.

Everyone should also know Fr. Deacon Chris and his Filipino contacts in the Philippines also clandestinely registered the "GREEK ORTHODOX PATRIARCHATE OF ANTIOCH AND ALL THE EAST, INC. " in the Philippine SEC last December 2006 (pls. see Philippine Securities and Echange Commission.). Now my question Marcus, was His Beatitude Ignatius IV Patriarch of Antioch informed beforehand by Fr. Deacon Chris Gain and by the Antiochian Archbishop of Australia of the registration of the GREEK ORTHODOX PATRIARCHATE OF ANTIOCH AND ALL THE EAST, INC or was he also "uninformed"? If the Patriarch of Antioch himself was uninformed so who gave Fr. Deacon Chris Gain authorization and blessing to register and establish the "GREEK ORTHODOX PATRIARCHATE OF ANTIOCH AND ALL THE EAST, INC. " and the "Iglesia Orthodoxa ng Pilipinas"? Now the doubtful and questionable canonicity of both entities becomes more apparent because of your revelations here at Wikipedia Talk Page. Our readers should thank you for these information.

Surprisingly, you even strongly declared that the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese in Australia has nothing to do, not only with these questionable entities but also with its founder when you wrote: I would like to repeat that the Antiochian Archdiocese of
Australia, New Zealand, and All Oceania has had nothing to do with Chris Gain nor with his Iglesia Ortodoxa ng Pilipinas. - Marcus

You have a lot of explaining to do Marcus. So why did you deleted all these information in your previous post? Was it because they are merely allegations based on speculations? Or you just made it all up? I have reasons to believe that it could be both. Please answer also my questions about the Iglesia Orthodoxa sa Pilipinas in my previous post. I would also advice you to be extra careful with what you post here in Wikepedia. I observed that many of them are purely speculations and mostly allegations or totally unsupported claims (please review my first edits in the Orthodoxy in the Philippines article you wrote). Thank you. --Filipino 03:34, June 10, 2007 (PDT)

Dear Filipino,

As stated before by Father John, you should refrain from personal attacks. This Orthodox wikipedia is not the forum to discuss matters that you raised. Furthermore, I also would remind you that Antioch and Istanbul are two separate independent churches and you are under the spiritual jurisdiction of Constantinople. Therefore, you as a layman and as someone from outside of the Antiochian jurisdiction, should also refrain from commenting on internal matters and problems with the Antiochian church and making such lamentable comments on Orthodox wikipedia because that is not the proper forum to do so. If Constantinople is concerned about this matter with "Iglesia Orthodoxa..." then its canonical hierarchs should write to the canonical hierarchs of Antioch. This is not a lay concern and I stand by what I have already stated. I do not need to elaborate anything more because we are not even in the same jurisdiction and for me to state anything further would be gossip. I will not engage in gossip and once again I am not the spokesperson for the Archdiocese.
It is very unbecoming of Orthodox Christians to attack other Orthodox Christians in this type of forum.